Proposal (revised): #VersionsInModuleNames
David M. Lloyd
david.lloyd at redhat.com
Thu Mar 23 18:44:48 UTC 2017
Looks good, thanks!
On 03/23/2017 01:15 PM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> Issue summary
> #VersionsInModuleNames -- Some have argued that library maintainers
> will be tempted to encode major version numbers, or even full version
> numbers, in module names. Is there some way we can guide people away
> from doing that? 
> Based on extensive feedback, from EG members and others, make two
> - Abandon the current proposal  to mandate that module names used
> anywhere in source-form module declarations both start and end with
> "Java letters".
> (This restriction was never implemented in the prototype RI.)
> - Revise the algorithm that computes the names of automatic modules so
> that it preserves digits at the end of module names . The name
> for `commons-lang3-3.0.jar`, e.g., will now be `commons.lang3`.
> (Whether that algorithm is changed in other ways, or automatic
> modules are abandoned altogether, is the subject of the separate
> #AutomaticModuleNames issue .)
> In order to discourage the encoding of version numbers in module names a
> Java language compiler may issue a lint warning when a module with such
> a name is compiled, but whether or not a compiler does so is beyond the
> scope of this specification.
>  http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/issues/#VersionsInModuleNames
>  http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jpms-spec-experts/2016-December/000516.html
>  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mr/jigsaw/spec/api/java/lang/module/ModuleFinder.html#of-java.nio.file.Path...-
>  http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/spec/issues/#AutomaticModuleNames
More information about the jpms-spec-experts